Author
Topic: Western post-1054 Orthodoxy (Read 33689 times)

The mutual excommunication of 1054 is seen as the point when East & West split, but from what I've been told, there was heresy before that date, AND there were people in the West who did remain Orthodox for a period afterward. Could I have examples of post-1054 Western Orthodox countries? I'm told that England was Orthodox until 1066 (and that Harold, the king who died that year at Hastings is an Orthodox martyr) when William the Conqueror brought Roman Catholic clergy with him. How do we know England was still Orthodox and who else was after 1054?

To be fair I would think we would have to look at the content of faith in various countries and people.

The West wasn't Orthodox one day and not Orthodox another. Most people didn't even know what had happened in Constantinople.

It's true that some English travelled to Constantinople after the Conquest and that there was an English church there.

What would be necessary would be to list those teachings and practices which might be considered un-Orthodox by 1054 and see which peoples in the West had not adopted them.

The Irish do not seem to have adopted the filioque until late for instance, and St Theodore, though he seems to have introduced the filioque did not accept the universal jurisidiction of the Pope.

So I don't think it's straightforward. Did those in the West who opposed the veneration of icons understand the veneration of icons for instance? On the one hand they were heretic iconoclasts, on the other hand perhaps they were judging something, idolatrous worship of images, which didn't exist in the East.

Even to be fair, did those in the West who taught that the christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorised at Chalcedon understand the issues in the East or the language that was used in the East.

So I am torn. On the one hand I want to push the presence of heretical thinking way back before 1054, on the other hand I want to ask questions about what was understood and meant in these controversies.

Whatever others say, Britain was more Orthodox and later than many other places. But even England was more influenced by the Frankish domination of the papacy on the continent than we might like. Fr John Romanides has written extensively on Britain and the Franks and Orthodoxy at www.romanity.org.

peterfarrington: Even to be fair, did those in the West who taught that the christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorised at Chalcedon understand the issues in the East or the language that was used in the East.

I don't think Chalcedon was ever as much of an obsession for Orthodox Christians as it is for Non-Chalcedonians.

It's not like missionaries travelled the West, spreading the "Good News" of the christology of Ibas and Theodoret.

Besides, Chalcedon did not authorize Nestorian christology.

« Last Edit: January 18, 2004, 02:28:09 AM by Linus7 »

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

[I'm told that England was Orthodox until 1066 (and that Harold, the king who died that year at Hastings is an Orthodox martyr) when William the Conqueror brought Roman Catholic clergy with him. How do we know England was still Orthodox and who else was after 1054?]

This is a frequently recurring topic it seems. England was not Orthodox until 1066. The Abps of Canterbury and York as well as the rest of the heirarchy and clergy of England were very much Roman Catholic being recognized in their respective offices by Rome. They did have different liturgical usages such as that of Sarum or Hereford but these were just derivations of the Roman rite. William didn't bring RC clergy with him but rather just brought more Norman clergy with him. There were Normans in some ecclesiastical posts in England prior to 1066.

As for Harold Godwinsson being a martyr.......what EO church recognizes him as such? The man was an oath breaker. He had sworn upon Holy Scripture as well as relics of the saints that after Edward died he would not impede William in claiming the English throne.

[but from what I've been told, there was heresy before that date, AND there were people in the West who did remain Orthodox for a period afterward]

There was heresy before 1054 in both the East and the West to be sure. I guess to answer your question I'd need to know what you mean by "Orthodox". Do you mean reciting the Creed with the filioque? Or that somewhere in the West people were celebrating the Divine Liturgy of St John.

[It's true that some English travelled to Constantinople after the Conquest and that there was an English church there.]

True some English did travel to New Rome and even fought for the emperor after the Conquest. In the same way after the fall of New Rome to the Turk some Byzantines traveled to Venice and took service with Western govt's. Just because there was an English church in New Rome is it thought that they did the DL? Rather they probably did whatever version of the Roman rite they'd followed in Jolly Old England.

The West did NOT consider that the Nestorian Christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorized at Chalcedon.

How many in the West temporarily "schismed" as a result of the Fifth Ecumenical Council?

You need to read some more history Linus. Pelagius could only find two bishops who would consecrate him when he came back from Constantinople II. All the rest considered he had sold Ibas and Theodoret down the river.

Since it was the writings of these two which were condemned at Constantinople II it was these writings which Pelagius was considered wrongly to have abandoned. Some didn't commune with Rome until 150 years later. Ibas' letter and Theodoret's Christology was considered entirely Orthodox by many in the West.

Theodoret himself wrote to Pope Leo saying that his (Theodoret's) Christology had won the day at Chalcedon. The North African province and much of the West agreed.

Sorry for a few questions....

Which bits of Chalcedon do you consider infallible?

And how do you know Chalcedon is an ecumenical council?

Why do you not accept the 8th and 9th Eastern Orthodox ecumenical councils?

Why do you not accept the 1845 encyclical of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and bishops as authoritative, since that also was signed by all the patriarchs and many of the bishops?

Since the West do not accept the 8th ecumenical council as ecumenical, or indeed as a true council, where does that leave the West between Photius and 1054? The EO considered it ecumenical, the West didn't. Why was the East in communion with a West that rejected an ecumenical council?

What about the Western rejection of Canon 28? How can the West be Orthodox if it rejects an ecumenical canon?

I think if you'd mentioned Ibas or Theodoret to a pre-1066 Saxon priest or bishop they would've said "Who?".

Undoubtedly. But there were many whose job it was to know and they did know. St Columbanus wrote to the Pope's telling them not to put up with the heresies of the East. He supported the Three Chapters, as did many others in the West. I'll dig out his letters.

My point is not to say that the West was heretical, I don't think St Columbanus was. But that different languages and understandings were at play, and that the West was often at odds with the East but wasn't necessarily heretical because of it.

I'm much more interested in the substance of someones faith - even St Leo - and discovering that what was meant is different to what has been heard. I have no time for preserving division when there is none. That's the devils work, and he's been able to do it too easily for too long.

I'd like to know whether St Leo of Rome died a heretic because he rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon? I don't think he did. But it seems there is a strain of EO thought which insists on external uniformity rather than agreement in substance. If St Leo of Rome rejected an ecumenical canon then I do find it confusing that Linus insists he is a saint in his own terms. He cannot say that Chalcedon is infallible and must be accepted and then venerate someone who rejects an infallible aspect of that council? Surely? I am confused in the logic???

But OOs apparently reject the Church's charism of infallbility and her authority. Thus they reject the Council of Chalcedon and the ecumenical councils that followed it.

In what way do I reject the latter councils, or indeed the substance of Chalcedon?

Don't you think that your attitude is a little like the big-endian/little-endian dispute in Gulliver's Travels? Do you think it contributes to the witness to Christ in the world.

I confess that Christ is fully God and fully man, without confusion or mixture, divison or seperation. I confess that the Three Chapters are blasphemy and should be utterly rejected. I confess that the humanity of Christ is perfect in will as in all other things pertaining to the fullness of humanity and the the Word of God wills both divinely and humanly. I confess that icons should be used as teaching aids and should be venerated, not as being venerated in themselves but that the veneration passes to that who is venerated.

In what way do I reject the latter councils?

You feel confident that God wants you to preserve division despite the fact that we have the same faith? I certainly don't feel that confidence nor do I feel confident in pointing out all the errors of the Roman Catholic communion or even the Church of the East. I'd much rather work with members of those communions for unity in truth and love than keep finding reasons for division.

Subdeacon Peter and Linus, please take the current deviation from the topic of this thread (and although it may have started as something related to the topic, it seems like it is not now) to another thread or discuss it via PM. Thank you.

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

Harald Godwinson was not fighting the Normans to be a religious martyr. The swearing an oath to William that he would support the Norman claim to the English throne is rather complicated by whether it was a freely taken oath, or under duress or that Harald was tricked. If anyone is interested citations from the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" in modern English translation can be provided. However, "Oath-breaking" was a very serious matter in those times. To be labeled as such was dire.

Harald, his brother Tostig and his father, Earl Godwin were major players, as it were, in English politics with the aim to be who had the most land and wealth and power.

I have come across a reference to some body claiming Harald Godwinson as a martyr and I *think* I saw an icon, but I will have to search for it. But the conquest wasn't a religious conflict. It was who would take over after St. Edward the Confessor's death. Harald Hardrada also was trying to make a grab and was defeated at the Battle of Stanford Bridge a short time before Hastings.

As to people going to Constantinople/Micklagard. It was rather common in the North lands for men who did not have land or who wanted to better themselves to go be a sword/ax for hire. The first references I've seen are in the late 900's. Again, citations from the Norse Sagas can be provided, if desired. They went there because thats where the money was. The Emperor had a unit only loyal to him and if one survived the rewards were great.

So some Anglo-Saxons are booted off their land by the Normans. They have to go somewhere and one place, that pays, is Micklagard.

Small oddity: on the balustrade in Hagia Sophia survives some runes that are thought to date to around 1100 A.D left by one "Halfdan" a nordic name.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Well, I did some looking. One of the things making it tricky is that in AS times the name is "Harald" but now many spell it "Harold". There is a reference to Harald Godwinson on "An English Orthodox Calender" at http://www.russianorthodox-roac.com/4.html as well as references to the "King martyr" from Vladimir Moss. At http://www.saintandrew.net/fr_josiah/st_alexis.htm on a page about St. Alexis Toth it says, in part, "For British descendants today is particulary significant since it is the memorial of the King-Martyr Harold II, and the Battle of Hastings in 1066."

Someone else on a page on various saint says they saw " a listing for "St. Harold, last Orthodox king of England" in the Calendar printed by St. John of Kronstadt Press", but they can't recall any details. I have no knowledge of this press myself.

The Wikipedia says that "The Orthodox church recently recognised Harold as a martyr with October 14 as his saint's day." but it give no citation or details as to who/where/when.

I was relieved to find out that that the icons I remembered were of earlier A.S. kings such as Edmund and Ethelbert.

A great laugh at the Norwegians considering Harald Hardrada a martyr I can imagine Garrison Keillor talking about that.

Yes Harald Hardrada ("Hardrede" or Severe Counsellor i.e. Tyrant) did go to the Varangian Guard. It's in the "Heimskringla" by Snorri Sturlison in section 3 of the "Saga of Harald Hardrade" (links provided if interested) Then he came back and was King. Then he tried to take part of England (in conjunction with Tostig (Harald Godwinson's brother) and died at Stamford Bridge.

That also has the saga of King Olaf of Norway, who is St. Olaf, who once won some land by some incredible dicing luck. But that tale is for another time..

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

So some Anglo-Saxons are booted off their land by the Normans. They have to go somewhere and one place, that pays, is Micklagard.

Well it wasn't quite like that. The entire episcopate was removed and many died in prison. Fr John Romanides of blessed memory has much to say about that. Many English were killed, raped, and brutalised while the Normans settled in. And the bloody history of the Middle Ages is a history of Norman dominance. It was a massive discontinuity.

There were many things which the English church still had in common with the wider and Eastern church before the conquest. Married parish priests were very common for instance. Baptism by immersion survived in places until even the 'reformation'.

In fact one of the reasons for the papal inspired and supported invasion of England was to bring the English church into closer conformity with Rome. Of course it was a Western Catholic church but it wasn't dominated by Rome in the way it came to be in the post-Conquest period. And certainly before the conquest the British churches were not dominated by Rome and Rome's writ did not have unquestioned authority.

This did change at the Conquest.

And of course if the pre-Conquest church wasn't Orthodox then neither was Rome and one might ask why the Eastern Churches were in communion with the West in 1053? If it was Orthodox then of course the English Church was Orthodox.

Well, I composed a reply and my computer got the pip and it was gone. So let's try again.

Taking conquered lands and giving them to people on the "winning side" was not new to the Normans. The Saxons did it in England when they started invading in the mid-400's. Reading the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle shows that the Saxons were not merely innocent pacifists that the Normans slaughtered indiscriminantly. They fought back. (In other times, they fought and killed each other. Harald and his brother Tostig were not examples of brotherly love for instance.) Some nobles went to Scotland and other places to regroup, gain allies and try to take it back. Here are the sections recording the years 1052 to 1101.

Re baptism, I was unaware that immersion was considered only "Eastern". there are references to immersion and there are also fonts from before 1066. The one in Wells Cathedral is a Saxon font from what I've read. (Never having visited there personally yet.)

In the Chronicle are numerous references to "Bishop so-and-so" going to Rome to recieve his pall from "Pope such-a-one". St. Dunstan didn't celebrate mass with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that I've ever read. Patrick went to Rome and thence to Ireland. "Orthodox" and "Catholic" did not have all the connotations that they have here and now. There was Christendom from the far north and west (Iceland converted by vote in 1000 A.D.) to beyond the Byzantine Empire. There were many places and customs in between dedicated to worshiping the Trinity.

I have seen Vladimir Moss' writings. They have been posted by ROAC for example.

With respect,

Ebor

« Last Edit: January 20, 2004, 02:57:05 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Perhaps you should try not to put so much of a Non-Chalcedonian spin on the history you read.

You said that many in the West taught that Chalcedon authorized the Christology of Ibas and Theodoret, and by that you meant their early, Nestorian Christology.

That is not true, nor can you prove it from history.

What I believe many in the West objected to was what appeared to them as the condemnation of men who were already dead - and thus not able to appear and defend themselves - in order to appease schismatic Monophysites.

As I understand it, Theodoret and Ibas had repented of their Nestorianism, just as you maintain Eutyches repented at Ephesus 449.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, however, never repented and was himself condemned at Constantinople II and not merely his writings.

You should try to post without being insulting or condescending.

Quote

peterfarrington: Pelagius could only find two bishops who would consecrate him when he came back from Constantinople II. All the rest considered he had sold Ibas and Theodoret down the river.Since it was the writings of these two which were condemned at Constantinople II it was these writings which Pelagius was considered wrongly to have abandoned. Some didn't commune with Rome until 150 years later. Ibas' letter and Theodoret's Christology was considered entirely Orthodox by many in the West.

Theodoret himself wrote to Pope Leo saying that his (Theodoret's) Christology had won the day at Chalcedon. The North African province and much of the West agreed.

Theodoret was the author of the reunion formulary signed by St. Cyril himself in 433, which stated:

[Christ is] "perfect God and perfect man consisting of rational soul and body, of one substance with the Father in His Godhead, of one substance with us in His Manhood, so that there is a union of two natures; on which ground we confess Christ to be one and Mary to be the mother of God " ( quoted in Chadwick's The Early Church, p. 199).

His written criticisms of St. Cyril (one of the "Chapters" condemned at Constantinople II) predate that and Chalcedon.

Evidently he had altered his Nestorian leanings by 431 when he authored the reunion formulary signed by St. Cyril.

That is why Theodoret was not condemned at Chalcedon.

It was not Theodoret's older, Nestorian Christology which was considered Orthodox in the West. That was hardly possible given the outcome of Chalcedon.

Quote

peterfarrington: Sorry for a few questions....

Which bits of Chalcedon do you consider infallible?

Its dogma, not every minute remark.

But that is a good question.

Quote

peterfarrington: And how do you know Chalcedon is an ecumenical council?

The Orthodox Church tells me it is; I believe it on the authority of the Church.

Those who became the Oriental Orthodox (mainly Egyptians) rejected that authority for what they believed were good reasons, just as the Nestorians rejected the Church's authority regarding Ephesus 431 for what they believed were good reasons.

If it is possible to reject the authority of the Church and still be Orthodox, then are Protestants Orthodox?

Quote

peterfarrington: Why do you not accept the 8th and 9th Eastern Orthodox ecumenical councils?

I was taught that the first Seven Councils were recognized by the Church as ecumenical.

I have not been taught any others have such universal recognition, nor have I read that that is the case.

I know that some regard the Quinisext Council (Trullo 692) as ecumenical, but, as I understand it, that opinion is not universal.

Quote

peterfarrington: Why do you not accept the 1845 encyclical of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and bishops as authoritative, since that also was signed by all the patriarchs and many of the bishops?

Encyclicals are not universally regarded as infallible and may contain error. Witness the Encyclion of the Emperor Basilicus (476) that you yourself cited once before. It was signed by how many bishops? 700? Yet it anathematized Chalcedon and declared the Latrocinium a valid council.

Obviously encyclicals are merely human letters and liable to mistakes.

Quote

peterfarrington: Since the West do not accept the 8th ecumenical council as ecumenical, or indeed as a true council, where does that leave the West between Photius and 1054? The EO considered it ecumenical, the West didn't. Why was the East in communion with a West that rejected an ecumenical council?

What about the Western rejection of Canon 28? How can the West be Orthodox if it rejects an ecumenical canon?

What you refer to as the 8th Ecumenical Council is not universally regarded by the Orthodox Church as ecumenical. If it were, I would accept that.

Canons deal with discipline and order and are not dogmatic, as I believe you know. They are subject to change and are not part of the Deposit of Faith.

Obviously there was disagreement over Canon 28, but that is not the same thing as rejection of an ecumenical council and the creation of a 1500-year schism.

How is authority to be exercised by the Church if whole regions and peoples are free to reject her councils and separate themselves from her?

Do you reject the idea of conciliar Church government?

« Last Edit: January 20, 2004, 04:23:46 PM by Linus7 »

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Why? It was an anathema against Humbert surely, and was a gesture, an opening of a conversation, nothing more. There are plenty of other anathemas that those who wished to could shake at the Roman Catholics.

In these dark days we need to be doing what we can to be reconciled with those who love Christ and share much in common. We need not have open communion to offer genuine friendship and fellowship. When we are assailed by liberalism on every side a gesture is important and makes a conversation possible.

Perhaps it will lead nowhere, but perhaps it will bear much fruit in God's will. It is not at all the same as saying that there are no important matters to discuss and obstacles which may be either surmountable or insurmountable.

I would respectfully suggest that as an 18 year old you should be slow to criticise your own Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and bishops. Anyone in the 21st century can hurl anathemas around. It takes wiser hearts to tread the path of reconciliation in Truth and Love.

[Well it wasn't quite like that. The entire episcopate was removed and many died in prison]

What? Ebor can back me up on this but the entire episcopate wasn't removed. In fact I seem to remember a Saxon bishop being told to give up his see in favor of a Norman. The Saxon stood by the tomb of one of his canonized predecessors saying that Saint So and So would decide who was to be bishop. The Saxon tossed the crozier on the tomb and the effigy grasped the crozier and wouldn't let go when the Norman tried to retrieve it but then released it to the Saxon. Also I think there were Normans already in Old Blighty as bishops under both St Edward and Harald the Oath-breaker.

I think Ebor responded to some of your other points. What made you think that married clerics were only in England. The Continent was rife with them up until Trent and even is more isolated cases after that.

[In fact one of the reasons for the papal inspired and supported invasion of England was to bring the English church into closer conformity with ]

Oh come on. The Pope blessed the standard that WIlliam carried but he would've sailed even without papal sanction. Your idea of the Normans seems a little off. The Middle Ages a period of Norman dominance? Where do you get this? You're giving them a little too much credit.

[Thus when King Ethelbert of Kent was baptized by St. Augustine in 597, “he had entered,” as Fr. Andrew Phillips writes, “‘Romanitas’, Romanity, the universe of Roman Christendom, becoming one of those numerous kings who owed allegiance, albeit formal, to the Emperor in New RomeGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª”]

Have you read Bede's history? I remember St Augustine being sent by the Roman Pope. Was there something I missed?

Obviously encyclicals are merely human letters and liable to mistakes.What you refer to as the 8th Ecumenical Council is not universally regarded by the Orthodox Church as ecumenical. If it were, I would accept that.

OK, guys, you've both lost me here. Are both PT and Linus7 even talking about the same 8th Ecumenical Council (879-880 which the Orthodox Church does accept as ecumenical, not the RC 869 one which we do not accept) ?

Demetri, the confused

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

To be honest I don't understand what Linus and PT are talking about. I thought this thread was about the mis-guided notion that pre-Conquest England was "Orthodox" which it was from an RC point of view.

OK, guys, you've both lost me here. Are both PT and Linus7 even talking about the same 8th Ecumenical Council (879-880 which the Orthodox Church does accept as ecumenical, not the RC 869 one which we do not accept) ?

Demetri, the confused

Perhaps the whole conciliar thing would be best dealt with in a separate thread.

Criticisms of Chalcedon should also probably be limited to the Non-Chalcedonian forum.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

Orthodox doesn't mean Eastern or Oriental Orthodox to me or to many converts in the UK. The Western church was Orthodox or it wasn't Catholic.

But you are not the only ones who use the word in referring to Christians, and in discussions it helps to have common meanings. To many people to say "Orthodox" *does* mean EO or OO in this time and world. Is "Orthodox" supposed to mean "Christian before 1054"? I'm afraid I do not quite understand your second sentence re "wasn't Catholic". I've tried flopping the terms to see if it's clearer "The Western Church was Catholic or it wasn't Orthodox." but I think I 'm missing your idea.

Quote

None of us, when engaged in evangelism, and using the concept of Orthodox England, mean Eastern Orthodox England.

Why? And what, precisely do you mean?. If it's not just using the Eastern Rites of liturgy, or using the "filioque" or not just having a patriarch east of Italy... This may be an important point for clarification. If it is only related to time before 1054, then what if someone were to refer to "Catholic Turkey or Kiev"? I suspect that there would be some objection.

Quote

It's a useful concept in our mission and I'm not sure why is is often attacked.

Useful?

Ebor

« Last Edit: January 21, 2004, 12:07:17 AM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

[Well it wasn't quite like that. The entire episcopate was removed and many died in prison]

What? Ebor can back me up on this but the entire episcopate wasn't removed. In fact I seem to remember a Saxon bishop being told to give up his see in favor of a Norman. The Saxon stood by the tomb of one of his canonized predecessors saying that Saint So and So would decide who was to be bishop. The Saxon tossed the crozier on the tomb and the effigy grasped the crozier and wouldn't let go when the Norman tried to retrieve it but then released it to the Saxon. Also I think there were Normans already in Old Blighty as bishops under both St Edward and Harald the Oath-breaker.

There were Normans and Franks in England for centuries, sometimes clerics and some were laypeople who married into English families. King Ethelbert had a Frankish, Christian wife while he was still Pagan and she brought a bishop with her. Marriages on the highest levels were to set alliances such as across the Channel. (See "Bede" which can be found starting here:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book1.html

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

[Thus when King Ethelbert of Kent was baptized by St. Augustine in 597, “he had entered,” as Fr. Andrew Phillips writes, “‘Romanitas’, Romanity, the universe of Roman Christendom, becoming one of those numerous kings who owed allegiance, albeit formal, to the Emperor in New RomeGÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Âª”]

Have you read Bede's history? I remember St Augustine being sent by the Roman Pope. Was there something I missed?

CR

I have been rereading Bede. In book 1, chapter 32 Pope Gregory sends presents and a letter to King Ethelbert. There is no mention of allegience to any emperor in "New Rome", though the dating of the letter is "Given the 22nd day of June, in the nineteenth year of the reign of the most pious emperor, Mauritius Tiberius, in the eighteenth year after his consulship. Fourth indiction." This sort of dating is common at the time. It is 601 A.D. The letter does refer to Constantine in his making the Roman Empire Christian but this is to encourage Ethelbert to do the same in spreading the faith among the English.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

One problem with the Vladimir Moss work cited is that he does not give source citations. The AS Chronicle is used, but what are the others. Then there's the problematic "Death bed prophecy of St. Edward the Confessor". I have read this before (on a ROAC site) and did some research which I will give tomorrow as it's late. However, here is one flat out error in it.

"...on a year and one day after the day of your death God has delivered all this kingdom, cursed by Him, into the hands of the enemy, and devils shall come through all this land with fire and sword and the havoc of war.” and farther down

"King Edward died on January 5, 1066. The first part of his prophecy was fulfilled exactly; for one year and one day after his death, on January 6, 1067, Duke William of Normandy, having been crowned..."

Edward died on the 5th of January 1066 "the Eve of Twelfthday" (AS Chron). William was crowned king on Christmas Day 1066. This is not a year and a day. The Julian Calender offset doesn't apply here either since there was no Gregorian Calender and wouldn't be for over 500 years. It's simply wrong. But it is given in the document as an Important Point.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I have been rereading Bede. In book 1, chapter 32 Pope Gregory sends presents and a letter to King Ethelbert. There is no mention of allegience to any emperor in "New Rome", though the dating of the letter is "Given the 22nd day of June, in the nineteenth year of the reign of the most pious emperor, Mauritius Tiberius, in the eighteenth year after his consulship. Fourth indiction." This sort of dating is common at the time. It is 601 A.D. The letter does refer to Constantine in his making the Roman Empire Christian but this is to encourage Ethelbert to do the same in spreading the faith among the English.

But this is Vladimir Moss' point. King Ethelbert is brought into the Roman world of the Emperor by his baptism. The dating is common - within the empire. I don't think Vladimir Moss is talking about some specific oath of allegiance but rather - and which seems reasonable - that by becoming a christian his relationship with the rest of christian Imperial europe changed.

I'm not going to argue about interpretations of this period of history - save to say that I find 80% of Vladimir Moss' position good. And I must say that Fr John Romanides also shared his opinions - or vice versa - and I understand Fr John better after having read Vladimir Moss.

Edward died on the 5th of January 1066 "the Eve of Twelfthday" (AS Chron). William was crowned king on Christmas Day 1066. This is not a year and a day. The Julian Calender offset doesn't apply here either since there was no Gregorian Calender and wouldn't be for over 500 years. It's simply wrong. But it is given in the document as an Important Point.

Yes there are errors like that I want to take up with him, but his chapter on the character of the Roman/Frankish Church wrt that of England is interesting - though I have other issues there.

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

Yes there are errors like that I want to take up with him, but his chapter on the character of the Roman/Frankish Church wrt that of England is interesting - though I have other issues there.

Well, the calendar error makes me question his historical interpretation greatly, because it isn't as if this mistake is hidden in the sources. The A-S chronicle is quite forthright about these dates, after all. (Also, in 1066 the Gregorian offset was half of what it is now, anyway.) It's that word "Orthodox" again. Really. After all, the whole thing relies on distinguishing those words "Orthodox" and "Catholic". I cannot escape the conclusion that the purpose of the whole inquiry is to try to recover a Christian England that is specifically not Catholic. Anglicans do it too. But the problems all arise out of trying to make this distinction in the proper historical context. When you try to do it politically, you have to go back before Whitby to do so; but when you try to do it doctrinally, the matter vanishes into a textual hole. I've seen no evidence that anyone in England-- or Normandy-- cared about the filioque.

The calendar error comes out of the same impetus. Orthodox vs. Catholic now tends to imply calendar difference. But then, it couldn't have, and even if you try to back things up, the dates still don't work out. My sense of all of these writings is that Mr. Moss writes as an apologist, and that it colors his perspective to the degree that I can't trust what he says.

My question is why is it so important to discover whether pre-Conquest England was Orthodox or not? Does this include Wales? What about Northumbria? Why don't we ask whether Scotland was Orthodox?

Well those of us in Britain and doing Orthodox evangelism DO consider that and DO consider that the churches in the British Isles were Orthodox.

Why do we do so? Because in our various missions we want to show that the faith and praxis we proclaim is close to that of the pre-Conquest churches in the British Isles - is is not alien.

And it seems a matter of fact that the praxis of the Orthodoxy Churches IS much, much closer to the early churches in the BI than even modern Roman Catholicism.

It is with missiological intent that we make this connection.

Anglicanism is not the same as the early churches. There are completely different practices and a different theology. Even Roman Catholicism has different practices and some different teachings. (I say this from my Orthodox perpective).

So what we are saying when we say that Britain was Orthodox is that what we are proclaiming is something that was here before. Why don't we say 'Catholic' in our evangelism, because we do not believe that Roman Catholicism is as close to the faith and praxis of the early churches. We are making a statement that our churches and those churches are the same, and for those of us who are British and Orthodox in a variety of communions, we believe that.

What about Saint Edward the Martyr? His relics are now in an Orthodox Church and I have read descriptions of him as a proper saint. One Orthodox woman prayed to him for the healing of her unborn child - it worked. A man called Edward (from Bulgaria if I recall correctly) was about to be baptized but the priest wanted him to change his name, as it was "not Orthodox". Then he had a dream in which a young man in robes and a crown said "I am Edward, King of the English. You bear my name. Be baptized". He later saw something along the lines of a coin portrait of St. Edward and one or more details matched the vision.

I've also seen a fine ikon of the saint at St. Joseph of Arimathea English Language Orthodox (Old Calendarist) Church, Toronto.

But this is Vladimir Moss' point. King Ethelbert is brought into the Roman world of the Emperor by his baptism. The dating is common - within the empire. I don't think Vladimir Moss is talking about some specific oath of allegiance but rather - and which seems reasonable - that by becoming a christian his relationship with the rest of christian Imperial europe changed.

I'm not going to argue about interpretations of this period of history - save to say that I find 80% of Vladimir Moss' position good. And I must say that Fr John Romanides also shared his opinions - or vice versa - and I understand Fr John better after having read Vladimir Moss.

Best wishes

Peter Theodore

It would seem to be Moss' theory that Ethelbert had this "relationship" but what does he use from historical primary sources to back it up? Primary sources are those from the time and people, such as The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Secondary and tertiary sources are removed from them, for example Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". Here is a link what make up the different sorts of sources: http://www.library.jcu.edu.au/LibraryGuides/primsrcs.shtml

One question is why you find Moss' position good? Why does it seem "reasonable" to you? Sometimes people will find something they like or that agrees with a view and decide that it is true. Unfortunately, it isn't always. Just because someone says or publishes something doesn't make it true.

Long ago, I read an book called "Scripture Twisting" that laid out the principles of how many people and cults take the Bible and make it seem to say things it doesn't. Taking passages out of context; conflating passages that in reality have nothing to do with each other; applying private meanings to common words, reading poetic or symbolic passages are literal are just a few of the ways. Or applying modern sensibilities and beliefs to historic figures and situations.

This practice also applies to other works, including History. Therefore, before we can say that a historical figure did something or believed something, we have to find some primary data. As Ronald Hutton (an English Scholar and historian) has pointed out, unless people in history *tell* us, we don't know for sure. Artifacts are found in a marsh, were they left there as an offering? Or dropped when someone died? Or fell out of a boat? Did Ethelbert believe that once he was baptized he was part of the Empire under Constantinople? Does he or someone writing for him tell us? Why would that make him "Orthodox" as opposed to "Catholic" or just "Christian"?

With respect

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Why would that make him "Orthodox" as opposed to "Catholic" or just "Christian"?

With respect also Ebor, I'm trying not to be argumentative and I am much more interested in learning with and from you.

I must say that from my perspective as an Orthodox missionary Orthodox, Catholic and Christian are synonymous. (Without meaning or wishing to be thought to be making any judgement concerning any Christian communion)

For myself, I consider that when I was a protestant evangelical and neither Orthodox nor Catholic, I was also not wholly Christian. I was missing so very much.

All that you say about primary sources is completely true. I'm going to email Vladimir Moss and ask him about the 'year and a day'. I'm also not so bothered about trying to develop some Eastern Orthodox link. For me Orthodoxy IS Christianity and Christianity IS Orthodoxy. The early British Churches were Orthodox not Eastern Orthodox. They were Catholic not Roman Catholic. But I believe that Orthodoxy, outside of the ethnic enclaves and among the indiginous converts, is well able to express being British and Orthodox, in a real continuity with early British Christianity which was also Orthodox, in its own cultural context.

Roman Catholicism - I must say, without meaning or wishing to denigrate anyone - has a different theology and praxis in many respects to both the early insular churches and wider Orthodoxy.

That doesn't mean that traditional 'Orthodox Catholic' Roman Catholics should not also be able to say that the early churches were also Catholic. But they were not Roman Catholic, nor Anglican, nor Baptist, nor Methodist, not Plymouth Brethren. If we do a list of what they believed and how they lived then it seems to me to be fact that the list is closest to Orthodoxy and then to traditional Roman Catholicism (if that exists, I mean in relation to the Pope but not Papal in the modern sense).

[One problem with the Vladimir Moss work cited is that he does not give source citations. The AS Chronicle is used, but what are the others.]

I noticed this too. Doesn't really make me take him seriously.

Another question is: is he qualified to write on this history? There is an interview with him here: http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/interviu.htmin which he states that he has a First degree in philosophy and psychology and a doctorate in psychology. Well, why would this make him a historian? Sir Stephen Runciman is one who was qualified with a First in History and many works on the Byzantine Empire and the Crusades to his credit. Him I would trust for careful study and analysis in this subject, but it wouldn't mean that he necessarily was expert in, say, astronomy.For that it would have to be demonstrated that he knew the field.

Quote

My question is why is it so important to discover whether pre-Conquest England was Orthodox or not? Does this include Wales? What about Northumbria? Why don't we ask whether Scotland was Orthodox?

CR

Well, I have theories on that and there's Keble's post. But I don't want others to be offended, just because a theory of mine doesn't agree with theirs.

Ebor

« Last Edit: January 22, 2004, 10:53:51 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I have done some research. There are 2 extant "Life of King Edward the Confessor" one by St. Aelred of Rivaux (1109-1166) and a later poetic one in Norman-French. I do not personally have an edition of an English translation, though I expect that at trip to Enoch-Pratt Library or the University of Maryland with find a copy. It is only available on line, that I have found, to people who are affiliated with the University of Sydney. The latter can be found showing the 1250-1260 manuscript here:http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/MSS/Ee.3.59/It would take me a while to puzzle it out, having modern French, but the old script being difficult to modern readers, and I have not done so yet, since I plan to find the "Lives" in book form at some point, leaving the translating to trained scholars. (But with the wonders of the Net, it's wonderful to actually see old manuscripts. )

The Catholic Encyclopedia gives a citation including which manuscript in the Bodlean Library it is and mentions in the text that it is from the earlier work. Moss has no citation, nor does the ROAC site, so we don't know where it is from. It could be from the Norman-French poetic "Life" but it seems clear that it is not from St. Aelred's work since the 2 quote are not the same. Now, it could have been 2 different translations of one work, but a) the provenence isn't stated and b) they don't say the same thing in that the 'year-and-a-day' prophecy is not in the quote from St. Aelred, among other things.

I put the 2 passages in columns to compare, btw.

Now Moss seems to hold this prophecy as Important. But lacking good data, we do not know that his version is accurate.

I must stop for now.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis